MCA reduces penalty as candidates who have consented for relocation to remote area for appointment as Company Secretary in company demanded a higher pay scale (above and beyond industry standards)
(a) due to Covid-19 pandemic, Company was unable to appoint Whole Time Company Secretary as none shown interest despite company’s effort during that period. (b) company is having negative reserves and surplus during the year 2021-2022. It has incurred losses during the year 2021.
NFRA’s investigations inter-alia revealed that the MACEL’s Auditor for the FY 2019-20 failed to meet the relevant requirements of the Standards on Auditing (‘SA’ hereafter) in a number of significant aspects and demonstrated a serious lack of competence. The EP failed to exercise professional judgement & skepticism during audit of fraudulent borrowings of Rs. 4,438.37 […]
Non-Appointment CS – penalty reduced – Ac imposing maximum penalty by Registrar of Companies on company, its Managing Director and other director is very harsh, burdensome on Company.
As Rule 8A (Appointment of Company Secretaries in Companies Not Covered Under Rule 8) of the Companies (Appointment and Remuneration of Managerial Personnel) Rules, 2014 (w.e.f 09.06.2014), a company other than a company covered under Rule 8 which has a paid-up share capital of five crore rupees or more shall have a whole-time company secretary. […]
ub-section (5) of Section 203 of the Act provides that if any company makes any default in complying with the provisions of this section, such company shall be liable to a penalty of five lakh rupees and every director and key managerial personnel of the company who is in default shall be liable to a penalty of fifty thousand rupees and where the default is a continuing one, with a further penalty of one thousand rupees for each day after the first during which such default continues but not exceeding five lakh rupees.
Penalty for Non-Appointment CS – matter is returned back to Registrar of Companies advising to re-examine the issues in totality and pass fresh order by taking the above facts into consideration before passing adjudication order and imposing penalty on the Company and its defaulting officers.
Order imposes on the EP, CA Pankaj Kumar a monetary penalty of 300,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs); and debars him for 3 (Three) years from being appointed as an auditor or internal auditor or from undertaking any audit in respect of financial statements or internal audit of the functions and activities of any company or body corporate.
The Audit lapses identified as a result of examination of the Audit File, related material on record and the personal hearing conducted, have been cetegorized into major lapses and other lapses
Lapses relate to the EP’s failure to identify and report material mistatements in the financial statements, standard of audit work performed falling way below the mandatory standards prescribed under the Act and required of an auditor of a PIE.
